[John McMahon]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Uh, first I don't intend to Shut the "F" up and John I have your cup of "Shut the "F" up right here.

I asked the questions I did because I have not been following what has been going on. Believe it or not I have other things going on that are more pressing and important to me.

The long and short is I do support SAAC. They have done a great job and done much to foster the hobby.

I cannot say that CSL does or does not have legitimate gripe though. I don't know enough about it. I know someone posted CS position and reasons on this forum awhile back.

I don't think that CSL should be looking to cripple or eliminate SAAC for many, many reasons unless as a last resort they need to in order protect their trade names and licensed rights. The motive should not be about destroying another club so you can be the only game in town, however. I believe that the sentiment engendered by this latest lawsuit regardless of who started it on the part of Cobra/Shelby enthusiasts and the enthusiast community will not be good and will be detrimental to the hobby. Litigation should be a last resort. I don't see why a fair licensing agreement can't be worked out with all appropriate safeguards to CSL thus allowing both clubs to exist side by side. The more venues people have to get involved the better for the hobby.

The masses of people who belong to SAAC and who will see this as an effort to destroy their club and be embittered by it should give Team Shelby pause as to their course and perhaps cause both sides to rethink the solution. Again not a very wise business move, similar to the action against FFR and SPF years ago which was unnecessary and caused alot of hard feelings against SAI.

And yes, Ron and John, I do consider SAAC an authority on all things Shelby regardless of which side I take, if I take a side that is. To the extent that Shelby is seeking to elimate SAAC or if that is their intent I oppose their actions but to the extent they are looking to just protect their rights and work out a reasonable licensing agreement, if that is their end game, I have no problem with it.

Also, Ron and John does this mean you now accept SAAC's official position on the Continuation series as authoritative? Please do tell...

Also, its not very smart to take sides until you have all the facts but.....in typical CC style some here will never let the facts get in the way of their decisions or position. Moreover, it may never dawn on some here that there is more then one side to a dispute and very rarely is one side 100% right.

Evan,

I have always agreed with SAAC's position the Continuation series.....

to quote Rick Kopec on SAAC Forums dated 1/10/08 @12:19AM:

Originally Posted by Rick Kopec

We have to give them the bad news. It’s not something we look forward to but it goes with the territory. We have expanded the registry each time we've printed it because there are more cars that "qualify" (and we get to determine which cars qualify and which ones don't, because THAT goes with the territory, too). We know that putting a group of cars in the registry raises their stature and may increase their value, but that’s an unintended consequence; a coincidence—albeit it a happy one for the owner of those cars. It is not the reason why we include them.

The registry initially included original Cobras and that needs no explanation. But when another category of cars was produced—AC MK IVs— we expanded our database to include them because they were very similar to the originals in the construction of their chassis and the shape of their body. We felt that it was not enough to include only original Cobras and exclude everything else, because ten or twenty years into the future these similar cars could very easily turn up renumbered as original, owner unknown Cobras. Providing specifications, production history, serial numbers, individual histories, and present or last known owners in a separate section of the registry would help keep these cars separate and distinct from the originals (and that’s our primary goal in including them) rather than just ignoring them because they are not originals. The same goes for the GT40 MK Vs. And we used the same rationale for including the CSX4000 series cars.

Now, fast-forward ten years. There are even more cars which fit our parameters for inclusion in the new registry: Kirkham Cobras, CSX7000 and CSX8000, AC COX continuation cars, McCluskey Daytona Coupes, Holman GT40 MK IIs, Kar Kraft MK IVs. It is confusing at best and downright mystifying for someone just starting out. Do we turn our backs on all these cars and leave everyone on their own? That’s not the way SAAC operates. We want to make everyone knowledgeable so they can protect themselves from buying something that isn’t what they think it is or what it is advertised to be. If it adds a little something to a car because it is “in the registry,” well, lucky them. But that’s not our purpose.

We are including the Superformance Brock Daytona Coupes in the registry because of Peter Brock’s involvement in the project. Without that we would probably not have been interested in including them.

In the last few years, Carroll Shelby has developed the habit of using the promise of SAAC registry inclusion as a deal sweetener for the cars he negotiated royalties on. He told Unique Performance that the Eleanor GT500Es and GT350 S/Rs would be in the registry without so much as consulting us. He told Barry Smith the same thing about the continuation 1967s, 1968s and 1969s he is building under the banner of Legendary GT Cars in Pennsylvania. And most recently he was involved with the builder of the Dearborn Deuce ’32 Ford steel reproductions. They were negotiating a deal to make a batch of these cars using Shelby aluminum 427 engines, Halibrand wheels, Lemans stripes and other Cobra-type styling cues. Shelby tossed out the promise that they would all be listed in SAAC’s registry. The first we heard about it was when someone called us to ask us about it and we had to confess that it was the first we had heard of it.

In all honesty, we resented the way Shelby was using SAAC and its registry to help line his pockets in putting together these “Shelby authorized” deals. He was creating a lot of extra work for us without offering to share the largesse. Not that we particularly agreed with his attaching-his-name-to-anything-for-a-fee philosophy. It’s just that he never even presented the idea to us to give us the chance to reject it.

Now it’s a moot point. Shelby has announced that Team Shelby will be doing a registry of their own. They can add the Unique GT500E and GT350 S/R cars to it, along with the Legendary GT continuation cars, Shelby Deuces, Shelby electric guitars, hydrogen powered Cobras, Shelby/Rucker motorcycles and whatever else he can convince someone to pay him to put his name on. It’s going to be some registry!

I have never said a bad word about your car, it is pristine and close to perfect (remember first place in that car show?). I just don't agree with your 'interpretation' of their official position.

Someday, we can sit down and have a nice cup of coffee and talk about it.

I guess the question is will you attend the Team Shelby convention or the SAAC convention? Hell, SAAC will be in your back yard this year.

Do you feel a Team Shelby Registry will do anymore to enhance the provenance of your car versus the official SAAC Registry?